Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 hands-on preview

Just Posted: our preview of the Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS. The 35-100mm F2.8 is Panasonic's second constant aperture zoom for Micro Four Thirds and is designed to cover the classic 70-200mm equivalent range. It does so in a relatively compact lens that matches the company's existing 12-35mm F2.8 bright standard zoom. The lens we have isn't ready for the rigors of studio testing, so isn't part of the relaunch of lens reviews just yet, but is 'final' enough for us to be allowed to publish a full-resolution samples gallery.

Comments

OKAY. . . In about two weeks I'm upgrading to a 4/3's system, my question is. . . do both Pany's and Oly's Lenses have full capabilities on each others bodies. Don't know if I phased the question correctly or not, but need some help on figuring out what lens I want to start with. . . a short zoom for starters.

MFT lenses are fully interchangeable between the two brands. One thing to keep in mind is that Panasonic lenses have the IS built into the lens (if it has IS) while Olympus builds it into the camera body.

I'd add that Panasonic corrects CA in camera. In some lighting conditions you'll get some CA when using Olympus bodies. That seems to really bother some people but I can almost never notice it with PL25 and I've used the 12-35. If you shoot raw it can easily be corrected in light room. The 7-14 seems to be very prone to bad flare on the E-M5, and this seems specific to the E-M5 and not other Olympus bodies. The PL 25 has some rattlesnake sounds for some folks on Olympus bodies (I hear it occasionally but still really like the combination. But in general they work well together.

Some folks will whine no mater what Olympus and Panasonic do. Either they whine about "not enough high end lenses" or they whine about "the high end lenses cost too much."

Absolutely no one sells their best lenses for bargain prices.

These high end weather sealed expensive M4/3 lenses aren't for everyone. They just help round out a system so it can have broader appeal.

Ask yourself... is M4/3 better off with or without these options for users who want them? If you want the best value, they just buy mid range camera with a two lens kit. These lenses aren't made for value based buyers, they are made for users who need the capabilities and are willing to pay for them.

If these lenses are too expensive for you, then you still have 35 other native M4/3 lenses you can use.

Yes, and of course there are also some great M43 lenses without autofocus. I use the Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye (a dedicated m43 lens) and it's great. Auto-focus isn't such a big deal at ultra-wide focal lengths.

As long as you can accept no OIS and 2.5 times the weight for that Tokina lens that also has nosier AF. Based on what we have seen from the Panasonic 12-35mm, the 35-100 will likely reveal more detail than the Tokina as well.

I agree that APS-C DSLRs occupy the sweet spot in terms of price / value for money. However, they can't match m43 "sweet spot" for size and weight. I recently moved from a Nikon APS-C DSLR system to m43 and the size/weight savings are staggering once the lenses are taken into account.

However, these kind of lenses (given the price tag) make sense only to someone who is keen on both of the following:1-Using MFT as a system2-Investing in the system via high price lenses

It will be interesting to find out what percentage of MFT buyers fit that profile. The other side to this DPReview Preview is a rather lame comparison with FF lenses. Sure, the FOV of 70-200 is matched (on FF) and so is the approximate T-stop, but not DOF control. And even with T-stop, a modern FF sensor is far more capable, and expected to be over 2-stops better than MFTs in high ISO noise performance.

A more logical comparison would be to APS-C sensors. But then, that FF 70-200 now has a FOV of 105-300mm, at f/2.8. That ultimately renders an MFT 35-100/2.8 lens to be equivalent to an APS-C 45-135mm/3.5 lens.

Well, to be fair Canon hasn't come up with anything since, but Canon's "latest" APS-C is 3 years old, and competition came right after that beat it. Will M43 improve much more before the next APS-C comes out from Canon?

"What t-stop is that? Has the t-stop of this lens actually been measured?"I don't know, but it should be fairly close to the f-stop (a tad slower). Too bad we end up using f-stop for t-stop.

"Expected to be by whom? Try looking at some sample images. It depends on which FF sensor you're comparing it to. They don't all perform over 2 stops better."Your idea of "better" may be different than mine. For objective evaluation, compare DXO ratings.

The Canon 70-200mm Mk 2 is $2199. The Panny is $1499. Cheaper and lighter but really not that much cheaper given that the Canon is L quality. I think Panasonic are overpriced at this level. I have a G3 with the MIJ 14-45mm and 45-200mm which are cheapos (compared with the constant 2.8's) but great quality. I do not plan to buy these high end micro-2/3rds lenses and if I was that serious about equipment I would upscale back to a full sized Canon and the L lenses. In fact, the Canon 70-200mm L f4 (closer to the Panny than the 2.8) is $1239 or cheaper than the Panasonic. Bottom line: Panasonic are overpricing themselves and they will kill off any serious photographers thinking about making the switch.

Canon L quality is not the holy grail or something. For example most Zuiko SHG glass is better. Panasonic has proven itself that it can make fine lenses. Just wait until it is tested properly and than decide if it is overpriced.

Lesson 1: You price things you make at a level that you cover your costs and make profit.

Lesson 2: Make as much profit as you can, as long as you can. Price products accordingly.

Lesson 3: You will only sell things and make profit if market perceives that what you are selling is worth what you are charging.

Lesson 4: Some will not be able to afford what you sell (regardless of whether they like it or not, others will whine about the price - and may or may not buy). Ignore whiners and focus on getting enough of customers that will buy your product at a price that makes you max profit.

Lesson 5: Only pay attention to whiners if you are not selling enough of your product to make profit - rethink strategy.

Lesson 6: Some people will whine no matter what you offer if it does not fit their individual view of the world. These too can be safely ignored.

That's true - it's good to have the option, and nobody is forcing us to buy. Personally, I'm going to wait to see what Olympus brings to the table in terms of quality zooms. They should be lighter, as they don't need built-in IS.

Oh wait, I just noticed the cheap kit tele-lenses (50-200) for most APS-C cameras are still F/4.5 at 135mm. F/4.5 on APS-C is about 1/3 stop slower than F/2.8 on m43 so that's pretty close in performance and size.

Darkshift, it's a 0.83 stop difference (for 1.5x). F/4.5 on aps-c is 1/2 stop darker (I made an a error) than f/2.8 on m43, but at least in the case o Pentax, the 50-200 lens is actually smaller and a heck of a lot cheaper. I'm sure the Pany is a lot sharper. My point is the size advantage is fairly modest at best and you pay quite a price premium for it.

Well in my case, I do ski photography, and it's a real pain to carry a DSLR + good tele lens around the mountain. Every powder day began with the same question: should I take the DSLR or not?

Now, I use a PEN camera + pancake which fits in the goggle pocket of my backpack. Then in another pocket I have the miniature 40-150mm. This setup permanently sits in my backpack, and you don't even notice it's there.

I'm definitely interested in this Panasonic lens, but it seems quite a bit overpriced.

Sigh. It's not non-sense. Just physics and it's precisely in the real world where this fact will be observed. Only in camera reviews (where exposure parameters aren't very well controller) will you think otherwise. If you double the sensor area, you can increase F-stop by 1.414 and collect the same amount of light and keep the same DOF. Which means you can double the ISO for the same amount of SNR. All of this means an F/4 lens on APS-C can be used to capture about the same noise, FOV, DOF, shutter speed as an F/2.8 lens on m43. Yes, the Oly OMD has narrowed the usual gap by 0.5 stop, but this isn't sustainable obviously.

I'm not saying the average m43 kit won't be smaller than, say, the average APS-C kit. I'm just pointing out that showing 70-200/2.8 lens next to a 35-100/2.8 m43 lens is a deceptive comparison. The so-called tradeoffs (both bad and good) of the m43 sensor are much more modest.

I can't see this being that much smaller than a k5 with da* 50-135 f2.8 kit especially since the gh3 is around the same size as a k5. Also optically the pentax will possibly be better and is fully weather sealed system too (we don't know how well the om-5 and gh3 are sealed).

Id guess the focusing will be faster on the 35-100 though as the pentax lens is a little slow.

I miss Phil Askey's sample shots. At least you get proper people photographs every time he took pictures of his wife/gf. What's up with these samples? Who gets a fast 70-200 2.8 equivalent lens and then goes off shooting land/cityscapes?

Dpreview, you should go check out this Korean photo site which did a much better preview on the 35-100 and a proper one at that with a real model!

I'm not complaining, but a few people shots should always be included in any sample set. Especially a lens like this which will most likely be used in such a manner. My Panasonic 45-175 X lens can shoot good landscape/cityscapes, but a fast lens like the 35-100 will definitely excel for people and portraiture.

Pretty cool. I have to visit a Korean website to get some serious images because dpreview is not capable of doing a proper test.The dpreview sample pictures always play in the low hobby shooter league. Sad in a way.

btw. I'm impressed that m4/3 indeed gives more subject isolation than I had thought.

Nice to see that my good initial impression about the lens is confirmed in this review. I had a chance to compare various micro four thirds lenses during the Photokina, (http://www.flickr.com/photos/igor29768/sets/72157631558216542/)and the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 was among my favorites for its decent imaging qualities (sharpness, contrast, etc.) and excellent handling (quick focus, smooth zoom,...).In fact, I was waiting for a long time for a high quality bright zoom lens in this focal length range, and I would be very happy to retire my frequently used Canon EOS 35-80mm f/4-5.6, which I loved but struggled to use with the EOS-to-MFT lens adapter.

VERY VERY NICE SET OF PHOTOS!!! congrats; its is good to see that the "tester/s" got some inspiration in and love out :P

Mixed feelings about the lens performance; the Gx1 didn't seemed to be up to the dress, the oly was a better dummy. Good 35mm overall and much improved middle range sharpness when stopped down to f4. I just get unemphatic with the bokeh substance... or better said, the lack of it.

I'ld like to see how the 12-35 and this perform in video, y por pedir, in a GH3

Quote"Panasonic can't circumvent the laws of optics, and the 35-100mm F2.8's small size means it can't offer the kind of subject isolation and background blur that you'll get from F2.8 zooms on cameras with larger sensors."

I think they really tried. Look at the Minimum focus distance!! Its 85cm, that alone is one reason why I will buy this lens. Most are 150cm. Moving in close to your subject at a even a large aperture, WILL provide suject isolation from background.Dpreview should test this law of physics to show that subject isolation will be great with the panasonic!

I have full frame (D800e) and a few u43 cameras. I always find myself looking for more DOF not less. U4/3 is great for ultra fast/long lenses. Full frame is able to blur out background on ultra wide to wide lenses.

It has a closer focus distance because it uses shorter focal lengths to achieve the same field of view. Those same short focal lengths are why the subject isolation (for the same framing) will always be less than a "real" 70-200.

@Andy Crowethe amount of subject isolation and extreme background/foreground blur you are talking about is 99% used as a lazy gimmick (often by 1st year art college types) and often distracts from the overall composition.

F2.8 on a Four Thirds sensor at 35-100mm is very satisfying on the human eye :-]

So now good subject isolation, and control of DOF in a fast telephoto is a gimmick? It's funny how when a camera system doesn't excel at something, it all of the sudden becomes something "lazy" photographers use as a gimmick. Keep telling yourself that.

Soon, easy in-camera processing will allow any level of subject isolation you wish, regardless of aperture. Start with a small aperture, and do anything you want to the image after the fact. Start with a large one... no way to recover an already blurred image. Already done with "toy" filters.

At least the F2.8 allows some fast shutter times on low ISOs for fast-moving kids without having to be in their faces.

In other words, having the desired effect of subject isolation produced by an expensive lens will not be a factor in the near future unless you are a "purist" (aka Ludite).

Of course it's impossible to use a 70-200 f/2.8 at f/5.6 to get the same DoF on FF I guess. Seriously delusional people on this forum in denial. I can get what ever DoF I want on FF, whereas as I can only get a subset of that DoF on m4/3. Yeah and before you whinge I do in fact own an Olympus OM-D and luckily I have the 45 f/1.8 for nice DoF control.

On FF you can get more control of dof, but it is still limited by physics. Many people do not think shallow dof is essential for their work. They aren't delusional, they just prefer deeper dof, as did many great photographers of the past.

The recent "Bourne" movie was a horrendous display of tight head shots with only a part of their face in focus, while the camera is constantly shaking and there's lots of talking... I like shallow DOF, but there's times for subject separation and there's times for keeping everything in focus, and thus the argument that shallow DOF is too often in place to "disguise" poor composition

I read that all the time but experience shows that in-body stabilisation is every bit as effective at reducing camera shake, if not better. The advantage of having it in the lens is it keeps the viewfinder image steadier. The advantage of having it in the body is that you don't have to wait as long for it to kick in and the image doesn't recompose every time you touch the shutter button.

I wish Oly or Panasonic would come out with a 100-300 f2.8 now. I know it would defeat the small size but wouldn't it be a kick to have a set of lenses from 12-300mm. I'd buy in in a second if the IQ was good.

@deep7: "The advantage of having it in the lens is it keeps the viewfinder image steadier." This is a key advantage in SLRs, certainly, but it isn't necessarily any more with electronic viewfinder cameras. In fact the E-M5's in-body system can be set up to give a stabilized viewfinder image on half-press.